User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 61

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    MBTI
    NFJ
    Posts
    62

    Default The ACTUAL Top Two Functions for Each Type

    Here is a list of my proposed top two functions for each type. The changes: P/J should refer to whether a type is rational or irrational as a result of their dominant function, i.e. Ps have a dominant perception function, Js have a dominant judgement function; the second function has the same attitude as the first, however this attitude is not quite as strong. Both of these ideas are derived from Jung, who lists Ni/Si dominants as irrationals, and says that the conscious attitude is introverted for an introvert, not partly introverted and partly extroverted as MBTI says.

    For example: INTP is Ni>Ti. The Ti is less differentiated, and so INTP will show more signs of Te than of Ne.

    Complete List:

    Irrationals:
    INTP: Ni > Ti
    INFP: Ni > Fi
    ISTP: Si > Ti
    ISFP: Si > Fi
    ENTP: Ne > Te
    ENFP: Ne > Fe
    ESTP: Se > Te
    ESFP: Se > Fe


    Rationals:
    INTJ: Ti > Ni
    ISTJ: Ti > Si
    INFJ: Fi > Ni
    ISFJ: Fi > Si
    ENTJ: Te > Ne
    ESTJ: Te > Se
    ENFJ: Fe > Ne
    ESFJ: Fe > Se

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I hope you're joking; there's mountains of information out there running counter to your refining of the function orders here. The odds of you being right and 95% of the other expert MBTI-analysts being wrong is so enormously low, that considering it as a possibility would be like going out into the pasture and counting the beans, or picking every single hair out of the haystack one by one to find the needle.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    MBTI
    NFJ
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Expected reply.

    My Fi says I might be right. Ha!

  4. #4
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    I hope you're joking; there's mountains of information out there running counter to your refining of the function orders here. The odds of you being right and 95% of the other expert MBTI-analysts being wrong is so enormously low, that considering it as a possibility would be like going out into the pasture and counting the beans, or picking every single hair out of the haystack one by one to find the needle.
    I hope you're joking. As further discussed in my posts in this thread, I'd say the OP reflects Jung's view. And FYI, there's really no respectable body of empirical support for anybody's functions model.

    The MBTI dichotomies, which substantially line up with four of the Big Five dimensions, now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability, while the "cognitive functions" — which James Reynierse (in the 2009 article linked below) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it, not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. And many more dichotomy-based studies have been done in the years since. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in the linked article, it cited a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support."

    Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as I'm sure you know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.

    As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model.

    And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

    If you're interested, you can find out quite a bit more about the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in this long INTJforum post.

    Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:


    The Reynierse article also talks about the attitude of the auxiliary function, and quotes Carl Alfred Meier — Jung's longtime assistant and the first president of the Jung Institute in Zürich — explaining that Jung viewed the auxiliary function as having the same attitude as the dominant.

  5. #5
    ndovjtjcaqidthi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concur_Withall View Post
    INFJ: Fi > Ni
    Interesting.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Hypatia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    406

    Default

    : 3

  7. #7
    Senior Member Hypatia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    406

    Default

    I like this thread.

  8. #8
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default



    Thanks, @reckful, awesome explanation. I need to read more about all of this.
    Last edited by skylights; 12-22-2013 at 01:16 PM. Reason: further thought

  9. #9
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concur_Withall View Post
    Here is a list of my proposed top two functions for each type. The changes: P/J should refer to whether a type is rational or irrational as a result of their dominant function, i.e. Ps have a dominant perception function, Js have a dominant judgement function; the second function has the same attitude as the first, however this attitude is not quite as strong. Both of these ideas are derived from Jung, who lists Ni/Si dominants as irrationals, and says that the conscious attitude is introverted for an introvert, not partly introverted and partly extroverted as MBTI says.

    For example: INTP is Ni>Ti. The Ti is less differentiated, and so INTP will show more signs of Te than of Ne.
    so let's say you are correct, and INTPs are Ni>Ti...
    except for all the [mistakenly named] "INTPs" who have typed themselves according to either the understanding that they have Ti>Ne>Si>Fe, or the INTPs typed according to tests built on the idea of looking for Ti>Ne>Si>Fe, or the INTPs who have being typed according to other people who learned to seek Ti>Ne>Si>Fe, as well as the accumilative knowledge about those "INTPs" - from the general type related statistics down to the personal experiences, and even the gradual mutation of what the functions and letters mean based on how decades of people who have thought they had the functions and/or observed the functions in others have noted.

    this doesn't mean that there isn't any potential insight into yourself and others to be gained from revising, refining or correcting past understandings of the functions or MBTI, understanding the mechanisms of typology in a form closer to the original might reveal meaning that got lost since (or alternatively, in misunderstanding the original meanings in a different way then others do, you might end up stumbling upon something that works better), but for that to work you have to approach it as an altogether different typology system - a distant cousin to the ones in current use but not much more.... much like we attempt to separate between mbti and socionics (yay the power of capital letters), and a bit less successfully separate mbti from keirsey.

  10. #10
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    I hope you're joking. As further discussed in my posts in this thread, I'd say the OP reflects Jung's view. And FYI, there's really no respectable body of empirical support for anybody's functions model.
    scientifically, it may in some respects be a game in its early stages. when looking at the bodies of advanced self-observation done by thousands of years of yogis aiming to perfect the human powers of self-observation through meditation, exercise, and proprioceptive mind-body integration, there is at least an ongoing recognition of the two "channels" pertinent in human existence (which outline a basic lateralization story, which still seems be the ground for understanding jung's introverted perception extroverted perception split). to organize the similarity within this dimension across the other dimensions of type dynamics is useful. it helps us understand functionality far deeper than a one-to-one relationship with what we can tangibly observe would allow for. it primes our ability to hypothesize, and embeds facts in a coherent, conceptual framework, a logic of more complex conditionals than can be contextualized solely through observing at one scale only.

    The MBTI dichotomies, which substantially line up with four of the Big Five dimensions, now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability, while the "cognitive functions" — which James Reynierse (in the 2009 article linked below) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it, not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. And many more dichotomy-based studies have been done in the years since. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in the linked article, it cited a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support."

    Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as I'm sure you know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.

    As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model.
    to take a state snapshot, a static metric of something incredibly complex is often misleading. so much depends on how you organize your conditions of perception to assess what the relevant scale of wholeness is. so it goes with cognition. while a language based test may not provide an effective medium through which to observe the whole of type dynamics, at the same time, Nardi has his own position on whether you can observe relatively consistent cognitive functions patterns across type with brain imaging. his position is yes. he wrote a book on it. he, of course, is more interested in the dynamics of complex systems (at least according to his description of his research interests and computational play on his website).

    And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
    i would be interested in hearing more about this story. i would like to understand jungian thought better, both in the ethereal moments within his mind that have somewhat dissipated and the ongoing conversations that those moments have sparked when expressed through teaching and writing. i know that people tend to argue over jung's type as well as his notion of type dynamics, in part because of the difficulty in sussing out some of his unstated assumptions. at other times, there seems to be more direct contradiction. regardless, his fascination with kundalini and specifically hieros gamos, the sacred marriage of masculine and feminine, not only embodies this dimension, the dimension of judgment, but also the dimension of the j/p split, the dimension of perspective. the j/s split notion is consistent with the research that demonstrates hemispheric preference waxes and then wanes throughout the two life phases. the idea at this scale is very similar to the move towards wholeness as a path of both individuation up to the tipping point and then spiritual absolution into the singularity of god after that jung presupposes throughout his work. this underlying foundation speaks to a highly unified model more compelling and consistent than a fixation solely on the language games would permit. it allows one aspect of the dualism to be the foundation for the other, without either becoming so entrenched that they cannot be let go in service of this move towards absolution.

    If you're interested, you can find out quite a bit more about the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in this long INTJforum post.

    Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:


    The Reynierse article also talks about the attitude of the auxiliary function, and quotes Carl Alfred Meier — Jung's longtime assistant and the first president of the Jung Institute in Zürich — explaining that Jung viewed the auxiliary function as having the same attitude as the dominant.
    his critique of type dynamics as "category mistakes" seems to me to be misinformed. i don't get the sense that he's well-versed in typological thinking, complex systems theory, or logical type errors. the latter is the biggest issue. to say that the facts only exist at one scale of observation, the whole of a single type, laid out flat without any attempt to preserve the intentionality within it as a kind of embodied internal hierarchy, just doesn't work. you don't get good models that way. and you definitely don't do better at producing a coherent theory without a grammar to organize the representations you are employing. to just treat everything as a static object in real space leads to issues of scaling, which is where the kind of vulgarized response to dualistic thinking, underwritten by the j/p split, starts to show itself to become non-sensical.

    moreover, there's more dimensions of what we call personality than simply socio-cognitive functions. the enneagram provides a better window into the psychosocial aspects of ego development. one focuses on language types of internal communication processes. the other on the way that those are embodied through tangible emotionally monitored social relationships. simply flattening out the model, losing the internal coherency as a result, makes it impossible to usefully theorize cross-contextually and generate new fabrics to weave together the already woven ones.

Similar Threads

  1. Which is the best pet for each type?
    By CitizenErased in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-23-2016, 04:47 PM
  2. The Role of Shadow Functions in MBTi Type
    By MerkW in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-03-2010, 11:26 PM
  3. Visualizing the Functions of each Type
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-19-2009, 08:42 PM
  4. Holiday Gifts for each Type
    By gretch in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 12:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO